Military Review

The analytical program "However," with Mikhail Leontyev, 31 March 2011


It seems that “Fukushima” has already become annoying, giving way, for example, to Libya. What is noticeable in the tape News. Although in the absence - God forbid! - sensational news the situation there is clearly not getting any better.

The crash on the Japanese "Fukushima" has so far been assigned the 6 level compared to the Chernobyl 7 level. At the same time, the amount of radioactive iodine in some points of the marine zone in the area of ​​the NPP is already more than the allowable 4000 times. The concentration of radioactive cesium, which has a much longer decay period, in some places of the 35-kilometer zone exceeds the Chernobyl peak values ​​4 times. Experts agree that part of the reactor core, fuel rods and zirconium sheath melted on one of the power units.

Paying respect to the unique Japanese social solidarity, it must be admitted that all история accidents are a gradual dismantling of illusions about Japanese organizational, informational, technological, and managerial efficiency. And not a market-commercial, but a state one. With that, the Japanese business coped brilliantly with a really difficult technological problem.

“If we look at the picture of Japan today, everything is destroyed, the nuclear power plant is standing,” said Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency. “Let's evaluate it accurately: the nuclear power station withstood a nine-point, maximum possible earthquake, and withstand absolutely normal.”

And this is a fact. Super task decided. A foolish problem: the cooling system, in which power supply was cut off due to the tsunami. Here, who would have thought ?! They talk about some kind of commercially motivated fraud, which, of course, immediately revealed. However, the main factor - our painfully familiar - "human" - human carelessness.

In April, 1986, in Chernobyl, it all started with an explosion, the cause of which, as we know, was called the "human factor". The explosion completely destroyed the reactor and the building of the unit, caused a fire, which, sacrificing lives, extinguished two weeks, and a huge release of radiation. There was nothing like this in Japan. And numerous explosions, incomparably less destructive, occurred and occur as a result of the inability to restore the cooling system of the reactor.

Dandyiness is a universal human factor. As for the state as a system that guarantees the safety of the object. And there, and here we have an institutional failure. It is hard not to notice that the Japanese system acts much worse, weaker, and more helpless in conditions of much lesser threat than the USSR edition of 1986 of the year. And at the same time, Chernobyl was super-efficiently used as a mechanism for dismantling the state. Not Japan, mind you. Chernobyl, if anyone forgot, - the starting point of the collapse of the Union.

There is a problem with nuclear energy, the life cycle of the reactor, its safety and maintenance is in no way limited to its service life. He is generally incomprehensible than limited.

The journal "However", in the next issue devoted to this issue, writes: "The concept of the life cycle of nuclear power plants is not used at all in their design and feasibility studies. In principle, it is not intended to disassemble such devices and dispose of them completely. Even without an accident in the middle or at the end of the NPP’s life, the economic reality may radically change. The state system, the type of economy and economy may change. "

That is, only the state in its primary, most non-market incarnation is able to be responsible for the safety of facilities such as nuclear power plants. You see, there is no reliable and safe concept of disassembly, dismantling of the old reactor. But what is worse, there is no reliable and safe concept of dismantling the state. Nuclear power, built on non-demountable reactors, can only afford a non-demountable state. And no one else.
Originator:"rel =" nofollow ">
Add a comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.